5 ms·

Soviets did that. The results of this amazing system you can observe on r/combatfootage almost daily now. I'm also curious what makes weapons research and prod

Soviets did that. The results of this amazing system you can observe on r/combatfootage almost daily now. I'm also curious what makes weapons research and production an "essential government function"? Couldn't the same be said about food, technology and bunch of other things?

p_l 3y ago
Russian losses today are not really related to soviet production practices. To quote some US officers - "Soviet equipment works well - in Ukrainian hands". Something something maintenance and logistics are king, even if artillery is the queen.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  > To quote some US officers - "Soviet equipment works well - in Ukrainian hands". US officials say a lot of things... I'm much more inclined to believe actual VSU fighters who say it's better.
pxmpxm 3y ago
Under appreciated comment.
solardev 3y ago
Yeah, the Soviet system didn't work out too well, did it? Though I wonder how much of that was due to central planning vs rampant corruption, of which we're getting more and more of these days too. > I'm also curious what makes weapons research and production an "essential government function"? Couldn't the same be said about food, technology and bunch of other things? Sure. There's a lot of stuff I wish we would nationalize, personally: basically everything that could reasonably be considered an essential, from healthcare to education to food to broadband, leaving aside things like video games, luxury cars, jewelry, blah blah. What is or isn't an "essential" is a necessarily moving target, evolving with society. However, I also have zero faith in Washington to execute anything remotely like that. Canada, maybe, or one of the Asian or Nordic governments...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > central planning vs rampant corruption Highly centralized planning creates an enormous vulnerability for corruption, because it creates a small number of high-impact corruption targets.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I don't really see how this is different from the military-industrial complex + campaign finance + lobbying situation we have today. It's just as corrupt, by any other name.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  Central planning probably had not hindered small scale production such as most military procurements (except ordinance). It really hurt them in the mass consumer goods though... Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand. > Sure. There's a lot of stuff I wish we would nationalize, personally: basically everything that could reasonably be considered an essential, from healthcare to education to food to broadband, leaving aside things like video games, luxury cars, jewelry, blah blah. What is or isn't an "essential" is a necessarily moving target, evolving with society. I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago. > However, I also have zero faith in Washington to execute anything remotely like that. Canada, maybe, or one of the Asian or Nordic governments... Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions.
  - solardev 3y ago
    > Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand. Yeah, but also seems to happen with big corporations. Power corrupts and all that. It's only human =/ > I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago. Me too. I'd prefer the government not just randomly shut down every time the Republicans (it's always them, isn't it?) feel the need to virtue signal about some pop culture thing or another. Somehow most governments in the developed world manage to operate day to day without this constant threat. American exceptionalism rearing its ugly head again... > Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions. For real? Who cares about NATO spending? Meanwhile they have functional governments, holidays, healthcare, education... the things that every citizen can use every day, and that you can afford when you're not trying to build up a 100x military that nobody else wants to pay for.

p_l 3y ago

Russian losses today are not really related to soviet production practices. To quote some US officers - "Soviet equipment works well - in Ukrainian hands". Something something maintenance and logistics are king, even if artillery is the queen.

dilyevsky 3y ago
> To quote some US officers - "Soviet equipment works well - in Ukrainian hands". US officials say a lot of things... I'm much more inclined to believe actual VSU fighters who say it's better.

pxmpxm 3y ago

Under appreciated comment.

solardev 3y ago

Yeah, the Soviet system didn't work out too well, did it? Though I wonder how much of that was due to central planning vs rampant corruption, of which we're getting more and more of these days too. > I'm also curious what makes weapons research and production an "essential government function"? Couldn't the same be said about food, technology and bunch of other things? Sure. There's a lot of stuff I wish we would nationalize, personally: basically everything that could reasonably be considered an essential, from healthcare to education to food to broadband, leaving aside things like video games, luxury cars, jewelry, blah blah. What is or isn't an "essential" is a necessarily moving target, evolving with society. However, I also have zero faith in Washington to execute anything remotely like that. Canada, maybe, or one of the Asian or Nordic governments...

dragonwriter 3y ago
> central planning vs rampant corruption Highly centralized planning creates an enormous vulnerability for corruption, because it creates a small number of high-impact corruption targets.
- solardev 3y ago
  I don't really see how this is different from the military-industrial complex + campaign finance + lobbying situation we have today. It's just as corrupt, by any other name.
dilyevsky 3y ago
Central planning probably had not hindered small scale production such as most military procurements (except ordinance). It really hurt them in the mass consumer goods though... Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand. > Sure. There's a lot of stuff I wish we would nationalize, personally: basically everything that could reasonably be considered an essential, from healthcare to education to food to broadband, leaving aside things like video games, luxury cars, jewelry, blah blah. What is or isn't an "essential" is a necessarily moving target, evolving with society. I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago. > However, I also have zero faith in Washington to execute anything remotely like that. Canada, maybe, or one of the Asian or Nordic governments... Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions.
- solardev 3y ago
  > Rampant corruption and central government planning go hand-in-hand. Yeah, but also seems to happen with big corporations. Power corrupts and all that. It's only human =/ > I for one would prefer essential services not to shutdown because of politics like what almost happened a week ago. Me too. I'd prefer the government not just randomly shut down every time the Republicans (it's always them, isn't it?) feel the need to virtue signal about some pop culture thing or another. Somehow most governments in the developed world manage to operate day to day without this constant threat. American exceptionalism rearing its ugly head again... > Canada and europeans have historically failed to keep up with US despite (some would say "because") more government-centric approach. Exercise for the reader - which NATO countries are meeting its declared 2% millitary spending target if you don't include things like pensions. For real? Who cares about NATO spending? Meanwhile they have functional governments, holidays, healthcare, education... the things that every citizen can use every day, and that you can afford when you're not trying to build up a 100x military that nobody else wants to pay for.